Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Todd Montgomery <tmont@****.WVU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject: Combat Rules Anyone?
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 05:08:19 CET
OK, The POA looks pretty good, Kudos to Mr. Hayden
The FAQ looks good also, No complaintes from this end.

Now, on to some ideas.

Your talking about working with vehicles from the ground-up and that
looks good. I can atest to that form of design because I am involved
with a project at my school in designing a HEV (Hybrid Electric
Vehicle) for a competition in June at FORD in Dearborne , Michagon.
Mechanics aren't my field, Computers are. But I have worked on cars
for about 10 years. The ground-up approach I think you are trying to
use is good. Design the frame, then the engine, put the interior
together, pop on the shell, and your done. Not usually that simple but
it seems to work. You have been discussing chassis's. OK, I also see
you have concentarted a lot on car chassis. I sort of think the cars
should be separate from the planes, drones, watercraft, and etc. These
chassis's seem to be just too diverse and have a huge difference in
game stats. But If you divide the chassis's too much then you may have
just too much to work with effectively. I think we want something
kind of simple and vehicle universal. Is that correct?

On the subject of rules changes. Like I posted last week. I think the
current rules for vehicle combat for SR just don't make the rigger
very attractive to play. If the system would allow for vehicle actions
like driving, then combat would flow better with vehicles and riggers
especially would benefit. This would allow the rigger to be in with
the team on chases and not just driving the getaway car. The rigger
could use his head to figure out how to loose a "tail" and not just
rely on dice and skill and the GM to think of some clever description.
I really think this could work well. The idea really wouldn't change
much from regular combat. Just make driving like moving in combat, but
with manuevers taking up actions. The idea kind of came to me from
looking at the DMZ rules (dusted off from the closet clutter). DMZ had
cycle combat integrated into regular combat.

Any comments?

-- Quiktek
tmont@****.wvu.wvnet.edu

"It is not man who is the enemy of the human species. It is the
irrational; it is the spiritual when it is divorced from the material;
from the lesson in one beating heart or one bleeding vein."
- Maharet
"The Queen of the Damned" - Anne Rice
Message no. 2
From: R Andrew Hayden <rahayden@*****.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combat Rules Anyone?
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 08:13:09 CET
On Mon, 1 Feb 1993, Todd Montgomery wrote:

>
>
>
> Now, on to some ideas.

[some deleted]

> You have been discussing chassis's. OK, I also see
> you have concentarted a lot on car chassis. I sort of think the cars
> should be separate from the planes, drones, watercraft, and etc. These
> chassis's seem to be just too diverse and have a huge difference in
> game stats. But If you divide the chassis's too much then you may have
> just too much to work with effectively. I think we want something
> kind of simple and vehicle universal. Is that correct?

Essentially. Sr gives us ten distinct types of vehicles (if we include
trailers). So, in effect, we are making up ten sets of design rules.
BUT, all ten sets of rules are related to each other, using many of the
same characteristics and building blocks. This makes our design system
incredibly powerful in that the same terms are used and the same
principles are applied.




]> Robert Hayden <] [> This .signature has been made <]
]> <] [> with 85% recycled pixels. <]
]> rahayden@*****.weeg.uiowa.edu <]
]> aq650@****.INS.CWRU.Edu <]

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Combat Rules Anyone?, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.